On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 07:10:56 +0000, Tim Roberts wrote: > Thomas Guettler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>I tried PIL for image batch processing. But somehow I don't like it >> - Font-Selection: You need to give the name of the font file. - >> Drawing on an image needs a different object that pasting and saving. >> - The handbook is from Dec. 2006.
I don't want to dissapoint you but PIL font handling sucks terribly. > I have repeatedly seen the attitude in your last point, and I simply do > not understand it. What on Earth is wrong with having a product that > actually becomes stable? > > We all complain about Microsoft's feature bloat, rolling out unnecessary > new releases of their products year after year with features that no one > really needs. But when an open source product FAILS to produce a new > release every six weeks, we start seeing posts questioning whether the > product is still viable or has become abandonware. I think if you really TRY to create your own project you'll understand what's going on here. >From near 10 open source projects that I've started only 1 is living today. > Once a product does the job it was designed to do, IT'S DONE. Because there's no such thing as "do the job you where designed to do" Example: designed for image manipulation. No matter how many features you've already implemented there's always something more to do. > Personally, I think PIL is a great solution for batch processing, but > the beauty of the open source world is that the ARE alternatives. Yes, it's open source, and everybody will win if you'll extend PIL to do what you want. Really, I do have some working snippets of code that do handle fonts nicely with PIL images, read and parse OpenType tables, but I can't publish it because it's optimized for my private needs like only two languages: Russian and English. I had to rewrite PIL's FreeType layer from scratch to do what I want. You can do the same. Ivan -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list